About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
two u.s. warships to the libyan coast and marines into tripoli and the fbi has opened an investigation into the attack that killed those four americans. contrast that with what mitt romney did today, campaigning in virginia. let's listen to him. >> as we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we're at the mercy of events instead of shaping events and a strong america is to shape events and a strong america, by the way, depends on a strong military. this president has done something i find very hard to understand. ever since fdr, we've had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once and he's saying, no, we're going to cut that back to only one conflict. >> joe klein, thank you. because you have a big picture look of this. what is mitt romney talking about that is relevant to aur our ability to deal with the group of militants in a place like benghazi that go against the embassy or going against the embassy and ambassadors of the embassy itself in care iro, be egypt. >> once again, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about or he's 25 years out of date. it was a product
potential terrorist operatives in the united states. the fbi tracks people on a regular basis. what eichenwald is saying the cell that attacked on the united states was ichd in the united states and that's what was referenced in the pbd. that's why i want that declassified. the administration identified al qaeda as a threat. they didn't understand the malt tud or urgency. they accepted, okay, we have to deal with al qaeda but they did not appreciate how big and urgent threat it was. when you see the president's conversation just then, you had a little bit of that sense. so, that was the issue. you had -- we were arguing in the counterterrorism shop, had you to elevate al qaeda at the expense of other issues on the foreign policy agenda. as michael said, they came into office with the view of terrorism as a prism through state sponsorship and iraq in particular. in the days after 9/11, there were plenty of conversations saying, are you sure iraq wasn't involved in it? it got to the point where we had to write a memo to the president saying, we analyze the information. iraq was not be
that there were potential terrorist operatives. the fbi tracks people on a regular basis. what they are implying is that the al qaeda cell that committed the 9/11 attacks was identified in the united states and that was a reference in the may 1st pdb. that's why i want to see e that declassified. here's the point with the administration leading up to 9/ 9/11. the administration identified al qaeda as a threat. they didn't understand the urgency. in multiple meetings we had in the spring and summer, they accepted we have a to deal with al qaeda, but they did not appreciate how urgent a threat it was. we see the president's conversation. you had a little bit of that sense. so that was the issue. we were arguing in the counterterrorism shop. and as michael said, they came into office with a view of terrorism as a primpl through state sponsorship and the days and weeks after 9/11, there were plenty of conversations saying you sure iraq wasn't involved in it? we wrote a memo saying we analyzed the situation. iraq was not behind this attack. >> well we're going to be digging through this for the rest
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)